Strange

Yes. Maybe what you are missing is that the two arms are affected differently (because of the nature of the waves). Therefore, the time taken for light to travel each arm will be different (because the speed of light doesn't change and time = distance / velocity), therefore there will be a phase difference between each arm. You seem to have misunderstood. As you can see, I didn't say they are not being contracted (alternately stretched and squeezed, in fact). I said they are both affected by the same amount. So if you tried to use the wavelength of the light to measure the length of the arm, you would measure a difference. But if you use the speed of light, then you will see a difference. The speed of light is not affected. It travels different distances in each arm. Again, I said the speed of light does NOT change. I guess this is why you don't understand the explanations. You seem to be interpreting things to mean the opposite of what is said... Because if light takes a different amount of time to travel one arm than the other, it will have a different phase when it gets back.

The phase difference is due to the difference in light travel time. We don't agree on that. You seem to have convinced yourself to such an extent that you are not willing to consider that you might be mistaken. You have just explained why there is a change in length: "so anything occuping that space will wave in exactly the same way as the grav wave". The gravitational wave causes a change in space, i.e. length.

Isn't that what he just said?

I don't think I can do any better than the explanation from the first page I linked to: So, you are correct: the length of the arm and "ruler" (wavelength of light) both change on the same way. But the speed of light doesn't change. So the time taken for each "pulse" (wave) to arrive changes. As I say, unless you can say what it is about that you don't understand (i.e. it is not measuring length, it is measuring travel time) I don't know how to make it clearer. I'm not sure they occur "all the time" but they do occur. Good experimental design (and results analysis) is all about trying to eliminate them. You can read all about the work done to check that it is a real signal and extract all the information from it here: https://cplberry.com/2016/02/23/gw150914-the-papers/ The likely direction is a result of the detection (a rough triangulation based mainly on the delay between the two detectors) not an input to it, so I'm not sure why that would be a problem.

It makes no sense because ... Because ... jeez. It just has zero semantic content. How is a theory supposed to be "formatted" by photons? What does it mean to "format" a theory? How do you think photons can "format" something? You might as well say "Potatoes adjusted by dreams". It is just nonsense. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

DeMorgan's Theorem: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Electronic/DeMorgan.html

No.

I have provided several different explanations. If you could explain exactly why you find those unsatisfactory, it might be easier to address your question. So, for example, if you were attempting to measure the length of the interferometer by using the wavelength of light, then you would be correct: both the arm and the "ruler" (the wavelength) would vary by the same amount. But that is not what is being done. Can you be more specific about which parts of the various explanations provided you do not understand? (Without just saying "everything is warped to the same degree so gravitational waves are undetectable"; they clearly are detectable so the problem is with your understanding of the explanation, not the detection process itself.)

Just repeating the same nonsense doesn't help. As you have no evidence for this hogwash, and refuse to engage in a discussion (e.g. answering questions) I think it can be safely ignored. Still no reference to this experiment. And you still haven't learned how to spell Neil deGrasse Tyson. I see no reason to take this idiocy seriously. A marketing person at the book publisher.

Crumble fluttock wimble dosh, cravick blump toots. (That makes about as much sense as your comment.)

I didn't say that. But people disagree about these. There is no absolute definition of these. Some people do not think that murderers have a right to life. Some people think that certain social groups do not have the same rights as everyone else. You tried to use the fact that there are some absolute truths to claim that therefore relativism is wrong. You are now saying that there are some absolute truths, but not all truths are absolute. Therefore relativism is correct. See, a good philosophical argument s one that can change your mind! Well done.

That is a fermion and an anti-fermion becoming a boson. That is possible because it doesn't violate conservations laws. A fermion cannot become a boson because that would violate conservation laws. No-one knows what happens inside a black hole. According to current theory, it is unknowable. What do you mean by "creation of matter"? If it is a fundamental particle, then nothing goes on inside (that is what "fundamental" means). In the case of, say, protons that are made of quarks, we have a reasonably good idea of what goes on. (But it is complicated and beyond my understanding.) Hydrogen, helium and lithium were formed in the early universe. All other elements were formed in stars (mainly supernovae). Not black holes. (Or, if they are, then they stay in the black hole and so are not really relevant.)

Of course (because they have mass). And "field" not "feel".

I'm not sure how you are going to develop a model related to string theory if you don't even understand the real basic schoolboy-level stuff ...

Do you mean between the Earth and the Sun? Gravity.

We can "see" Jupiter's gravity. Through the orbits of its moons, the effects it has on the orbits of other planets, etc. Jupiter does not generate gravitational waves, so there is nothing to "see" in that regard. And, we can "see" the gravity of dark matter (if that is what you mean by "dark source"?) which is how we know that there must be dark matter. And, of course, there have been other "dark sources" such as Neptune, which was first known about because of its gravitational effects, a long time before it was actually seen.

From the source.

And they are correct. I'm not sure how that is relevant to the question. Apart from the minute gravitational effect mentioned, photons do not attract electrons (as photons have no charge). I think a photon can interact with ("hit") an electron and change its direction. And photons can change the energy levels of electrons in atoms (even knocking them out of the atom, if the photon has enough energy). But attraction? No.

VIRGO, in Italy, should be online soon (or is already?) - I realised the other day, I have driven right past it on the autostrada from Pisa. Next time I will have to see if it can be seen from the road!

Exactly. It's a bit like detecting broadband radio signals (such as GPS or mobile phone) which can be below the noise level, but can still be detected because you know what pattern you are looking for. They do a rough pass to extract likely looking patterns and then try and match those against detailed simulations of different scenarios (two black holes, two neutron stars, neutron star + black hole, etc). A much bigger problem than collisions from gas molecules (which is Brownian motion, effectively, and would just be random noise) is things like thunder, passing vehicles, animals, etc.

No. The big bang model describes the universe expanding and cooling from an early hot, dense state. It says nothing about "creation from nothing", nor any sort of creation, because our models can't (currently) go back that early.

The stretching takes place at right angles to the direction of travel. So if one of the arms was pointing directly at the source, then it wouldn't be affected at all. There is another explanation here: https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/faq (It basically says the same thing as the others, but sometimes i=different words can help...) I have seen a very detailed explanation. I will see if I can find it again. More here: https://www.quora.com/If-gravitational-wave-affects-light-how-does-LIGO-prevent-its-lasers-from-being-affected

Well spotted!

I have never heard any other plural. http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/rhinoceros

You have just repeated the same thing. Oddly, that doesn't make it an clearer. What does "vector" mean in this context? Do you mean direction of movement? (I assume "1e__" is just more of your weird random punctuation) And what is "any other wise"? Do you mean you cannot see anything that suggests that the universe existed, and that things were moving before the Sun was created? How would the Sun be created if nothing were moving? Which is exactly why it is meaningless. You cannot be outside the universe, because there is no "outside" and so there is nothing for the universe as a whole to move relative to.